Browse Categories

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds value by detailing what the tool returns (counts and subcategories) and that it covers all available categories. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every sentence contributes meaning without unnecessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given zero parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and return information (counts and subcategories). It is complete for the tool's simplicity, though it does not describe the exact return format.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters and is fully covered (100% coverage). The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('browse') and the resource ('all available product categories'). It also specifies outputs ('counts and subcategories') and distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by noting its use case ('before searching' and 'find the right category/subcategory slugs').

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly instructs when to use this tool: 'to understand what's in the index before searching, or to find the right category/subcategory slugs for filtered searches.' It provides clear context without explicitly stating when not to use it, but the usage scenarios are well-defined.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.